There is a fit & happier person inside everyone

Monthly Archives: March 2016

Many organizations put out listings of the fittest and least fit cities in the United States each year. WalletHub has released its 2016 list of the 100 most populated cities in America and ranked them from least fit to most fit. Here is a map depicting their findings:

The cities denoted with the blue dots are the least fit, with the brightest shades of blue scoring the worst. The cities in the middle of the pack are indicated with gray or light brown dots. The fittest cities range from orange-brown (better than average) dots to bright orange (most fit).

The Good

Unlike many other previous studies that have led to similar rankings, WalletHub’s 2016 survey takes into consideration many relevant factors beyond BMI (body mass index), which is a number derived from height and weight.

This is important because BMI alone has been shown to be an inconsistent predictor of true fitness. The most obvious reason is that lean mass (muscle and bones) is denser and weighs more compared to the same volume of fat mass. Therefore, for example, a muscular Olympic athlete may erroneously fall in the overweight category on the BMI chart.

While the study did factor in percentages of the population in each of the cities who fell into the overweight and obese categories based on BMI, WalletHub also took into consideration 14 factors beyond BMI. For example, they also examined the percentage of inactive individuals, percentage of low consumption of produce and prevalence of lifestyle related conditions such as diabetes, high cholesterol and hypertension. This is a step in the right direction for these types of surveys.

The Bad

WalletHub is a financially focused website. So, it’s understandable that the main purpose of this study was to rank the fitness levels of the largest cities in the country in order to do a financial comparison to determine how much more costly it is for a city – both in healthcare costs and lower productivity – to have a predominately unhealthy population. What I’d prefer to see is a study focused specifically on health and fitness (as opposed to cost) that uses similar factors beyond BMI.

In addition, given that the authors of the study seemed to recognize the short-comings of the BMI chart, it would have been better for them to give more weight to the percentage of the population who fell into the obese category as opposed to weighting obese and overweight factors equally. The short-comings of the BMI are more pronounced for those in the overweight category compared to those in the obese category. Yet, this survey gave both categories the same weight to determine a city’s total score.

What all these studies almost always ignore is the other end of the BMI spectrum – those who are underweight. Being underweight has its own set of serious health risks and sometimes are an indication of chronically ill or frail individuals. This population, though obviously much smaller in number than the overweight and obese populations, incur similar costs associated with healthcare and low productivity. The percentages of low BMI may not be large enough to impact the final rankings, but it’s nonetheless an error to make the judgement that below normal BMI numbers are neutral or better as compared to high BMI numbers.

The Ugly

If there’s one thing I object to the most in this study and others like it is the semantics and the picture those words paint. The WalletHub rankings are entitled “fattest to fittest” cities in America. The depiction utilizes a health descriptor (fittest) at one end of the spectrum with a body image descriptor (fattest) at the other end. In every way, this is incorrect.

From a linguistic standpoint, fattest and fittest are not opposites. If they want to use fattest, then the opposite would be skinniest. I think anyone would recognize that this isn’t what these studies and surveys are measuring. After all skinny doesn’t always, and maybe not even often, equate to fit. And, as I pointed out before, we certainly know that an above average BMI doesn’t always equal unfit.

What they are trying to measure, indeed, is the fitness or health of a city’s population. In this sense, the survey is ranking most unfit to fittest or unhealthiest to healthiest. The word fat shouldn’t even be part of the conversation.

Still, no matter the words used to describe those cities at the very bottom of the health spectrum, the numbers are troubling. This is a serious quality of life issue for millions of Americans, both young and old. And we, as a society, really need to understand why these areas are struggling to adopt a fitter, healthier lifestyle. We can’t help them develop solutions until we understand the underlying causes.

So, while these annual surveys serve a purpose in determining the where, what and who of this problem, it’s time to start focusing on the why. Until we do that, we can’t know how to turn this ship around.

Infomercials, celebrity-backed products and outrageous social media and internet advertisements – most are the modern day incarnation of the travelling snake oil salesman. Every once in a while, legitimate products rise above the faddish clutter. Though they’re rare diamonds in the rough. For the most part, these products and services are, at best, ideas that worked for a select few but don’t translate to the general public or, at worst, all out scams. With a majority of the population clinically overweight or obese living in a society that places a huge value on thinness, it’s no wonder products that promise body perfection in a relatively short amount of time are a tremendous temptation for even the most rational among us. But, there are costs well beyond the price tags for repeatedly falling for fitness scams.

They have a physical cost. Fad diets promote sudden weight loss that is followed by quick weight gain once the diet is over. The effects of yo-yo dieting are well documented to cause metabolic and insulin resistance problems, putting one at a higher risk of developing diabetes and other metabolic disorders. Fad exercise products and programs rarely follow protocols to ensure the safety of deconditioned exercisers, putting them at greater risk for injury.

They also have a psychological impact. Scam diets create a vicious cycle of failure that leads to emotional eating, instigating negative self-talk, shame and a complete sense of hopelessness. Similarly, fad workouts and exercise products lead to repeated failure to adhere to regular exercise, convincing an individual that she’s incapable of performing safe and enjoyable exercise.

Today’s post provides a simple set of rules for you to employ to quickly identify the difference between a fitness scam and a legitimate program or product.

Rule #1: Fitness NEVER comes in a pill. Whether something is touted as a vitamin, all-natural, fat-melting or increasing metabolism – it’s all bunk. These are all supplements and aren’t tested or approved by the FDA like other foods and medications. Some contain substances that can interfere with prescription medications or worsen the symptoms of health conditions. The healthiest and safest way to get macro and micronutrients that nourish the body is through consuming a wide variety of minimally processed whole foods. One cannot “melt” fat or instantly rev up metabolism. In order to achieve and maintain a healthy weight, one must consume healthy foods in proper portions and exercise to strengthen and build muscles to boost metabolism. No pill can substitute for healthy eating and exercise.

Rule #2: Fitness doesn’t have an end date. Whatever your new fitness plan – whether it’s a diet or exercise program – it will only work as long as you’re practicing it. If your diet plan uses specialty shakes or bars that replace meals; has its own measured-out, pre-packaged meals and snacks; includes weekly fasts or cleanses; allows a very limited variety of foods; or eliminates large food groups (carbs, meat, gluten, dairy) you will only lose weight as long as you’re following the plan. Once you’ve reached your goal weight and revert back to previous eating habits, you’ll regain the weight. Similarly, if you purchase a 30-day exercise video to help you lose weight and stop working out after the 30 days, the weight will return. Fitness is a lifestyle, not a short term program. Diets that teach you how to plan, prepare and portion a wide variety of minimally processed foods are the only ones that will promote healthy, gradual weight loss that can be maintained for a lifetime. Exercise works only when one is exercising. It’s a waste of time and money to buy into an exercise program for a finite amount of time.

Rule #3: Fitness isn’t quick and easy for anyone. Probably the biggest misconception is the idea that fitness is easy for the person who is already fit. I’m here to tell you that ain’t true. I don’t have shortcuts, I can’t let up on the gas pedal. If I skip a few workouts, cut a few corners, overindulge too many days in a row, I will feel it and it will show. The cold, hard truth is the more overweight and deconditioned one is, the harder she’s going to have to work and for a longer period of time to realize her fitness goals. If a product or program touts a large weight loss or a buff, muscular physique in a short amount of time, steer clear. It is physiologically impossible.

Rule #4: It is not possible to target fat-loss and muscle gain to a particular body part. I have heard and read it all: avoid dairy for a flat tummy; rock hard abs in two weeks; get a toned, lifted butt doing one exercise two minutes a day for one week. One can achieve an increase in lean muscle mass and a simultaneous reduction of body fat mass through proper diet and exercise, but she can’t control where the fat reduction will occur and by how much. Beyond that, it takes months of core work performed two to three times per week to achieve “rock hard” abs, ditto glute exercises to achieve a lifted, toned butt. And, while you do need to be sure you consume enough complete protein for muscle building, there’s no such thing as avoiding or consuming specific individual foods to achieve a flat tummy or any other body aesthetic. As for those exercise products that target strength training to one muscle group, you’ll be bored to death from using it before you’ll see any results. Just as the body craves and needs a variety of foods, so too is it true of exercise.

Remember these four rules when considering embarking on a diet or purchasing a fitness product. If it doesn’t pass the test, pass it by. And never be fitness scammed again.

If you’re following my Small Steps series, you know this month’s task is to manipulate our environments to make healthy food and exercise choices easier and unhealthy choices harder.

This week, I’m honing in on the first suggestion of the task: purge your life of junk foods and stock up on accessible, high quality foods. It seems simple but I understand when one’s in a grocery aisle, rushed and exhausted, studying nutrition labels can be mystifying, if not daunting. It’d be great if we all could make every item from scratch and eat only whole, fresh foods. But, most of us can’t do that. Often, we need to purchase processed foods – it’s a fact of life. Yet, not all processed foods are equal.

What is Processed Food?

Technically, homemade bread is processed food. Even using 100% whole grain flour doesn’t change this. Mixing ingredients and baking it transforms it into something else. There’s nothing unhealthy about this type of processed food. If you’re reading an ingredient list on packaged food and could realistically duplicate that product in your kitchen, it’s probably a good choice.

What should be off-limits is what I call highly processed foods. Highly processed foods are packaged goods made up a (long) list of mostly unrecognizable, industrially-made ingredients you couldn’t possibly duplicate in your kitchen. They’re a poor choice.

In other words, low-processed foods are made up of mostly low-processed or whole ingredients. While highly processed foods are made up of highly processed ingredients. The most common highly processed ingredients in packaged foods are flours, sweeteners and fats.

Low Processed vs Highly Processed Ingredients

Flour: The most common flour used in packaged foods is wheat. Think all purpose flour in your pantry. But, nearly any grain and many legumes (beans) can be made into flour. Enriched wheat flour is stripped down wheat with nutrients added back in. An important component that’s removed in the processing of non-whole flours is fiber, which is why whole grains are better than processed grains.

Good Choices: Ingredient lists that use the term “100% Whole” for most or all of the grains in the product are good choices. Besides wheat, other good choices in their whole forms are oats, barley, brown rice, triticale, rye, corn and buckwheat. Seeds such as flax, chia and sesame are also healthy ingredients.

Okay Choices: It’s not the end of the world to have non-whole grains in your food. It should be expected in baked items where a more delicate texture is desired such as cakes, cookies and muffins. These are treats and are fine for an occasional splurge if consumed within proper portions. An item with a mix of whole and non-whole grains, can be an acceptable choice in moderation.

Poor Choices: If the item isn’t considered dessert food and consists of only non-whole grains, particularly if they’re the main ingredients, pass it by. I also stay away from products that use legume flours such as soy and chickpea. Legume flours are more processed than grain flours. Legumes should be consumed in their whole forms.

Sweeteners: Unlike flours, sweeteners rarely have nutritional value. But, they do serve a purpose in the palatability of foods. Take care to keep added sweeteners to a minimum but I don’t subscribe to the notion they should be eliminated altogether. When comparing two similar food items with added sweeteners, I prefer the item with the most protein and fiber and the least processed sweeteners.

Fats: Fats are a necessary macronutrient but not all fats are created equal. There’s growing clinical evidence that saturated fats aren’t as unhealthy for the heart as once believed. Simultaneously, there’s growing clinical evidence that highly-processed plant-based polyunsaturated fats may be harmful. Polyunsaturated fats are found in abundance in highly processed, industrial oils – oils you won’t find at your local grocer. Yet, they’re rampant in processed foods.

Other considerations: Processed foods can contain other additives such as preservatives to extend shelf life, plant-extracted gums and lecithins as thickeners and emulsifiers, and artificial colors for aesthetics. It’s a matter of personal preference how much weight you give these ingredients when comparing products.

Making the Decision

When deciding which product to get, make note of the grains, sweeteners and fats in it. Anything from the most processed category should get a strike. Select the item with the least amount of strikes. If they’re equal in strikes, select the product with the most protein or fiber. This can be assessed quickly with a simple scan of the nutrition label. For a practical example, see the cracker comparison below.

Now you’re armed with all the information you need to replace your purged junk food with healthier choices. Happy shopping!

Cracker Comparison

Consider these three cracker options:

Back to Nature Grahams

These graham crackers have mostly non-whole grains, three types of sweeteners and industrial grade oil. Not in the picture is the less than 1g of fiber per serving. Not the best choice.

Nabisco Wheat Thins

Whole grain flour and 3g of fiber (not pictured) is a plus. Two types of sweeteners isn’t too bad. Soybean oil is a strike. But the color is extracted from plants, not dyes, and the preservative is added to the packaging as opposed to the food product. All in all, not a bad choice for mass produced crackers.

Carr’s Whole Wheat Crackers

The best of the bunch with whole grain, small amount of table sugar and palm oil. And it has more than twice the fiber per serving compared to the graham crackers.